No not a comment on architecture.

About eleven years ago, I first had the pleasure of visiting New Paltz, it was a Friday night, and between the climbing, and the streets lined with young pretty girls, I thought I'd found heaven, I wanted to never leave.

Last weekend, I was back again, hadn't been there on a Friday night for years, and was I disappointed or what? The climbing was still great, but the rest? Maybe I'm growing old, but.. what happened, is this the effect of juvenile obesity, new fashions, or what?

I'm planning to be there this Friday again, visible tottie had better be much improved, or, or, oh well. I suppose the climbing will bring me back anyway.

Skurdey

You're older - you realized that the "young, pretty girls" you remembered seeing were really just youngsters, barely out of high school.

Chicks are fatter. The damned "below the waist" waist band is a curse. Chick's think they aren't fat-hello muffin top. I was in college in the early 80's, no muffin tops- if there was a roll the chick was fat.

I know it's not PC, but stop kidding yourselves.

I don't always agree with alicex4, but the post above nails it. I come back to the States maybe once a year on vacation, so I see it with fresh eyes every time.

Can you say "oink"? I knew you could.

Guys are fatter too. In decades gone by, I used to see kids playing on city sidewalks, was one of them myself in ancient times. It seems that stickball, punchball and ringeleveo (sic?) are extinct urban sports. And in my not-so-humble opinion, tattoos on women are disgusting. Note that the uglier the gal, the more likely she is to be tattooed.

Are Japanese gals getting oinkier too?

I resemble that observation.

3 Out of 4 Americans Will Be Overweight or Obese by 2020, Study Says

Number of fat people in US to grow, report says

Thursday, September 23, 2010
By Staff, Associated Press

Paris (AP) - A new study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warns that citizens of the world's richest countries are getting fatter and fatter, with the United States leading the charge.

Three out of four Americans will be overweight or obese by 2020, the OECD said in its first-ever obesity forecast, released Thursday. The report said disease rates and health care spending will balloon unless governments, individuals and industry cooperate on a comprehensive strategy to combat the epidemic.

The Paris-based body, which brings together 33 of the world's leading economies, is better known for forecasting deficit and employment levels - not measuring waistlines. But the economic cost of excess weight is a growing concern for many governments.

I don't have statistics to back it, but based on observation alone I'd say the Japanese population is porking up a bit. When I first came here in the early to mid 80s, seeing an overweight person was extremely rare (and I'm not talking obese, hippo-on-parade obese like you see all over in the States, I'm just talking common-and-garden overweight).

Now, you do see overweight people here, and the occasional genuine hippo. Not all over like in the States, but a small scattering in the crowd.

Street scenery in Tokyo from this particular male perspective, however, remains among the best in the world.

Street scenery in Tokyo from this particular male perspective, however, remains among the best in the world.

Yeah, Japanese lasses are especially cute. We love our wives but ...

Actually, my wife *is* one of those especially cute Japanese lasses... lucky me.

It might be nice and eye-opening for New Paltz to exchange its young adult female population with those of a comparable Japanese municipality for a day or two.

Hey, remember it's earthquake country over here. I'd want a seismologist's opinion first on the potential impact of the increase in pressure on the earth's crust...

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

The American girls are the ones still jiggling after the tremor has stopped.

The American girls are the ones still jiggling after the tremor has stopped.

Ah Mike, you can be funny sometimes. Does anyone have the temerity to post some Main St. photos illustrating the point of this thread?

Well, the males of Main Street are no great shakes either, if one can only see the laze-abouts you all seem to. Unless, I suppose, one likes drug-infested greasers looking for their dealer to show up.

But maybe the cure for all this eyesore/wishing for eye candy would be to hang out around Rock & Snow instead of the block east. That way you would see all the fit and healthy climber chicks(and guys) popping in to the shop. Or....maybe not spend such time in town that this is the only place one sees other people.

Well, the males of Main Street are no great shakes either, if one can only see the laze-abouts you all seem to.

Quite so, as I pointed out above. But note that only guys seem to have compass-needle eyes attracted to female eye magnets, unless I'm woefully ignorant of vice-versa.

Oeno, the ladies are just as observant but pride themselves in being less obvious about it.

Not quite true, we like some eye candy too - it's just not as obvious since women have better peripheral vision

women have better peripheral vision

Has that been documented via testing?

yes, it's been proven many times! In fact, you can do it yourself. next time you are in a crowded room say something like "Look at that beautiful girl!". Men will turn heads and will still go "where?", women will tell you what color her dress is without a slightest headturn.

But is this due to different ocular hardware or due to different behavior?

yes, it's been proven many times!

What journal article can you cite?

Anyway, peripheral vision doesn't take in details but is rather sensitive to motion, for an obvious reason. One's eyeballs must be pointed at an object for maximum detail pickup, thanks to the "high definition" fovea centralis at the retinal center. This enables one to gaze at the part of a body one most relishes.

Peripheral vision is much more effective in low light situations. If you look off-center at something in the dark you will see it much better than if you put it in the center of your vision.

It's a little old, but here's one that says there's a difference, at least in the vertical range. Not sure about the horizontal.

"Current learning theories stress input or the sensory apparatus as an important facet of learning and performance. The present study investigated the differences between athletes and nonathletes on vertical and horizontal vision and the relationship between sex and field of vision in both the athlete and nonathlete. The subjects were 132 Florida State University students. There were 53 male athletes, 29 female athletes, 25 male nonathletes and 25 female nonathletes. The subjects maximum field of vision was tested with a standard Bausch and Lomb perimeter whose depth measured 13 in. The results of the ANOVA support the hypothesis that both the vertical and horizontal fields of vision are superior for athletes compared to nonathletes. In addition, there are no sex differences within athletes and nonathletes except in the visual range. Females demonstrated greater high vertical range of vision."

Vertical and horizontal peripheral vision in male and female athletes and nonathletes.
Research Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2. (May 1975), pp. 200-205.
by J. M. Williams, J. Thirer

It is hard to believe that somehow AG isn't able to bastardize this thread as well into an attack on the Mohonk Preserve, yet. Speaking for myself, the diatribe continues to push me further away from this site despite my best attempts not to let it. Destroying the enjoyment I've experienced for quite a while from this site is not something I take lightly.
I can't wait to make another contribution to the preserve. It will not be a small one. F Off, MPNA.

Are we to conclude from Quanto's excerpt that since women possess a greater vertical visual range than men, the former do not need to point eyes at men in order to ogle them?

Reality Check: Sitting in Cafeteria presently, and not one female in the place is overweight. Nor any of the makes. Most are attractive enough to garner at least a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10, and some are even (gasp) having interesting conversations with others.

While I realize this is not precisely the same demographic as the "street scene," the variation from the OP makes me wonder if they might not have simply been having a bad dream. Or maybe one bad apple spoiled the whole bunch, and they couldn't see the forest for the trees, or something.

Terrie, I am always stunned by the dramatic difference when I am visiting somewhere like Colorado or Utah compared to the east in the body shape differences. I am not one to talk, as I am overweight. Endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph scales not withstanding, the east is definitely fatter.
Are you in a cafeteria in Colorado Springs, Boulder or Yosemite?

hahah - nope, though I do wish it so, since it's rain, rain, rain in the forecast here.

Your perspective is seriously skewed - you need to stop taking climbing/skiing vacations and go fishing/boating/laying-on-the-beach. Or if you go to a climbing destination, make sure to take yourself out of the dirtbag bubble once in a while. Say if you are in Tetons, make sure to drive an hour north and hang out around Old Faithful - the difference in the waist circumference is astounding.

Just spend time at the cheap buffets in Vegas. You wanna see fat, ugly Americans, Vegas is the place to go!

I think some guys would like to know where to be found the opposite of that, where eyes bulge at the sight of anatomic perfection without paying a cent for it.

I first noticed the difference when I was travelling to Colorado Springs regularly to help with the Olympic Committee. I could not find a fatty in the entire city! Sure there are those who are heavy anywhere you go, but I would love to see a study comparing places like that to the rest of the U.S. There are unquestionably towns that people have moved to in order to enjoy the out of doors and these places stand out dramaticly. Think about Mammoth, Moab, Park City, Boulder, etc. New Paltz used to be one of them as well until 9/1/1 sent so many scurrying north to Gardiner and N.P. and the huge college growth has also diluted the pool of locals on Main Street.

I would love to see a study comparing places like that to the rest of the U.S.

Here it is for all you fat *&&%$#@#s to see.

Worse that the Wal-Mart in Fayetteville, WV? Not possible!
BTW, the following Friday night in town was just as bad, I wasn't imagining it, people are visibly getting fatter.

A part of me hopes that as this gets worse, the problem of people needing so much medical care due to obesity will reach a tipping point where they will simply die younger, thereby solving the medicare funding problem for the rest...

Wow, Colorado stands out once again! One more reason to go there.

The map of obesity by county is especially revealing. Nice job pulling up the study for us.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's something like roughly 80% of healthcare costs are spent during the last 10 years of a person's life. With the growing rate of obesity, that tipping point is getting pushed to earlier ages as younger obese people are getting plagued by chronic ailments such as diabetes and heart disease. As the trend continues, the most lucrative biz is going to be kidney dialysis - we could probably put a machine at the base of the cliffs and make money!

Thanks. Note that Ulster County is in the mediocre obesity range.

The College's 8000 students include 52% from LI and NYC. Acceptance in 2010 required a HS GPA of 92%, and then, cancelled the mandatory phys ed grad requirement a few years ago, no wonder that the elevation on the east side of the Wallkill is beginning to subside. On the other hand with a 3:1 female to male ratio, even the most jaded should be able to find someone to their liking. One just has to stop lurking on Main St and attend more campus activities.

Sad though that after cancelling the phs ed requirement, SUNY New Paltz built a grand, new multi million dollar field house. Where we always hear of the Freshmen 15, I wonder if at NP it's Freshmen 20?

And here's how our nation compares with others for this category.

sorry, couldn't help!

The referenced OECD study broke out overweightness by socioeconomic level, but unfortunately, only did this for boys and girls rather than adults. Nevertheless, it supports my observation that "rich folk ain't so fat". I spend a fair amount of time in a very affluent town in MA, and there is a definite scarcity of obese folks. This also goes along with a healthier diet (lots of fresh fruits and veggies, more fish and other lean protein) costing more on average than a less healthy one (think hot dogs and pasta). One might also expect the well-off to have more access to active recreation, gyms, and the like.

Fully credible, Mike. It is amusing to look at political cartoons of the eigtheenth and nineteenth centuries portraying the wealthy as plump and the poor as slender.

It is true that obesity is inversely correlated with level of income. As you noted, Mike, part of the problem is that the cost/calorie of foods like Mac-n-cheese or Lunchables is far lower than the cost/calorie of fresh friuts and veggies. So for less money you get more fat and fewer nutrients. And that's all supported by government subsidies of the additives (corn syrup leading among them) that go into fast and processed foods. Your typical chicken Mc Nugget is chicken (raised on corn), processed with corn syrup added, breaded in corn meal, and fried in corn oil. As long as trans fats (which don't occur in nature) are subsidized, food manufacturers will have an added incentive to put them in our food, and because it will be cheap (and tasty) we will have incentive to buy it and eat it. And we'll get fatter and fatter. Right now 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese, and preventable, lifestyle related disease (cholesterol, diabetes, etc) account for 3/4 of our astoundingly high health care costs. Many people are literally eating them selves to death.

This trend, while alarming, keeps me employed and funded so I am not complaining too much.

Good NPR piece from this morning:

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer...amp;m=137838919